To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Make a difference between the unclean and the clean - i:e., between animals used and not used for food. It is probable that the laws contained in this chapter were not entirely new, but only gave the sanction of divine enactment to ancient usages. Some of the prohibited animals have, on physiological grounds, been everywhere rejected by the general sense or experience of mankind, while others may have been declared unclean from their unwholesomeness in warm countries, or from some reasons which are now imperfectly known, connected with contemporary idolatry.
The miscellaneous details of this chapter may be thus briefly summarized:
(1) "The clean," which were allowed to be eaten, were, among mammalia, the perfect ruminants - i:e., those which united the two-fold properties of chewing the cud and having a divided hoof (whence called fissipedes). Under this description were included the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygarg, the wild ox, the chamois (see the note at Deuteronomy 14:5), with the exception of the camel, the shaphan (coney), the arnebeth (hare), and swine, which possess only one of these natural characteristics of the ruminantia. In the "unclean" or interdicted class of quadrupeds were placed the solipedes and the carnivora or predaceans, including all the canine and feline tribes, which are zoophagous animals, as well as canis hyaena, and the necrophorus (glutton), which are necrophagous beasts, devouring carcasses or any putrescent substances.
(2) The "clean" among fish are not specified (cf. Deuteronomy 14:9), because a definite rule is given by which it was easy to determine those which were allowable food. Besides, the Israelites had little or no opportunity of obtaining this kind of aliment, and their knowledge of the inhabitants of the waters was confined to what they recollected of the Nile fish, or what subsequent experience brought them acquainted with in the Jordan. Among the "unclean" were the raiadoe (skate family), the squalidae (sharks, etc.), the siluridoe, the apodes (footless, as eels and other serpentine fish).
(3) The "clean" among birds are not pointed out by a distinct and explicit rule, such as is given in the case of fish. But no less than 20 names of birds, the bat being included in the number, are specified as unclean. All fowls must be considered as having been permissive food, except those which are here particularized and this index expurgatorius of birds embraces the raptores, comprehending the orders aquila and falco, as well as the carrion-feeders, the vultur and corvidae, the hoopoe (lapwings, among the insessores (perchers);-the grallatores (waders, as ibis, bittern, heron, snipe, etc.), and natatores (swimmers, as the Pelecanus onocratulus).
(4) Reptiles generally were declared unclean. The ophidia, the smaller mammalia, which are reckoned among "creeping things," the saurians (or crocodiles, lizards), the chelonians (tortoise or turtle, mollusca, crustacea, annelidae-all were proscribed as "abominations," with the single exception, among insects, of the saltatoria orthoptera.
In examining this list, it is not difficult to discover, at least to a certain extent, the reasons why some animals were by the Mosaic law declared to be clean and others unclean. Michaelis maintains that the distinction is founded on the nature of the animals themselves, which, though not poisonous, but perfectly edible, are generally regarded with strong abhorrence, and rejected as disgusting materials for food. But this view, just and correct so far as it goes, does not fully meet the conditions of the case, nor is custom, transmitted from the earliest times and incorporated with the Mosaic law, sufficient to account for the origin of so special a phraseology. The classification of certain animals as unclean arose, it is probable, from another, and, in the minds of the Israelites, a more powerful reason-namely, the sanctity attached to blood as the seat of vitality in the animal frame. Most of those prohibited are predatory, and derive their subsistence either entirely or occasionally from devouring the flesh of others along with their blood, 'which is the life.'
Moreover, not only such as live on this kind of food were unclean, but also the carcasses of all, even of edible animals, which, having died a natural death, or being torn and killed by ravenous beasts, retained in their mangled bodies some portion of the vital fluid. Hence, it may be inferred that the uncleanness ascribed to most of the animals which the Israelites were taught to rank among abominable things, was owing to their animal vitality being derived, in a secondary degree, from an infusion of blood from their prey.
The theory is applicable, though in a modified form, to camels, horses, and donkeys, which, though neither carnivorous nor sanguinivorous, were regarded as unclean. It is evident that those animals being, from their strength, their capacity of endurance, and other qualities, used as beasts of burden, not only is their flesh become tough and fibrous, but, from the straining of their energies in the service of their master, 'they are frequently so overheated by exertion, their whole body is in an inflamed state, so that all their muscular tissues are bloodshot, and they cannot be properly bled, because the blood, having copiously penetrated into the finest portions of the vascular system, cannot be removed by bleeding alone. Such an inflammatory state hardly ever occurs in the clean quadrupeds-that is, in the ruminantia with cloven feet' (see Michaelis' Dissertation on clean and unclean animals, Commentary on Laws of Moses,' vol. 3:, p. 218; Bochart, 'Hieroz,' 2:, pp. 33, 353; Calmet, 'Fragments on Natural History,' No. 3:; 'Biblical Review,' 5:, p. 281; 'Quarterly Review,' July, 1863).
It has been alleged to be altogether derogatory to the majesty of God to represent Him stooping to enter into these minute details of the animals to be used or rejected as food by the chosen people. But it must be remembered, that Yahweh was the King as well as the God of Israel; and that many of the ancient rulers in Eastern countries deemed it necessary to legislate on dietetics as a most important sanatory measure for the welfare of their people. Colonel Rawlinson found some brick monograms in Assyria, one of which (a tablet) contained a list of Birds which might not be eaten; and the laws of Menu forbid the Hindus to eat the flesh of quadrupeds with uncloven hoofs; carnivorous birds which live in towns; all birds that strike with their beaks and wound with strong talons; web-footed birds, and such as dive to devour fish; all amphibious fish-eaters, and tame hogs. These are remarkable parallels to the precepts in the Medic law; and the existence of such laws in the warm regions of the East shows that there must have been some occasion for the enactment, with which we are imperfectly acquainted.
But though the institution of these laws may have been enacted by a regard to the public health in Israel as well as in other nations, it contemplated the advancement of much higher purposes; and it cannot be supposed that Jews even of ordinary intelligence and piety failed to perceive the further intent of these stringent regulations, or were unable to see that the law which seemed to 'stand' outwardly in meats and drinks had regard to ends even more important than those of bodily health and cleanliness. These ends, which are noticed at the beginning of this chapter, were in one respectfully attained by the complete separation of Jews from all Gentiles (Acts 10:14; Acts 10:28; Acts 11:9), and in another respect were realized by the pious portion of the people, who would understand that the injunction to abstain from the use of unclean meats was symbolical of the holiness and purity that became them as the people of God (Leviticus 11:44-45).